'Torn Jeans, Pyjamas Next?' Gauhati High Court Pulls Up Lawyer For Justifying Wearing Jeans In Court

The Gauhati High Court recently refused to modify/alter an order passed by it in January 2023 by which it directed the police to remove a lawyer from the High Court campus after he appeared before the Court wearing a jeans pant in a pre-arrest bail application matter.

The single judge bench of Justice Kalyan Rai Surana observed:

“It appears that by virtue of this interlocutory application, the applicant is making an attempt to open Pandora's Box, which may create more problems than one can expect. If jeans can be worn in Court, then the applicant may next ask why he shall not be permitted to appear in Court in “torn” jeans, “faded” jeans, jeans with “printed patches”, which are considered to be fashionable, or why he should not be allowed to appear in black track pant, or black pajamas merely because the Gauhati High Court Rules has not specifically excluded those.”

It is to be noted that advocate Bijon Kumar Mahajan on January 27, 2023, appeared before the High Court wearing a jeans in a pre-arrest bail application. Therefore, The Court had ordered the police to remove him from the Court's premises and directed the said order be brought to the notice of the Chief Justice as well as to the Registrar General of the High Court and to the notice of Bar Council of Assam, Nagaland, Mizoram and Arunachal Pradesh.

The Senior Counsel appearing for the applicant submitted that although under Rule 49 of the Bar Council of India Rules, in respect of dress of the male advocates, amongst others, it is prescribed that trousers (white, black, striped or grey), dhoti, excluding jeans can be worn, but under Rule 16 of the Gauhati High Court (Conditions of Practice of Advocates) Rules, 2010 does not exclude jeans. Therefore, the Court could not have de-courted the applicant.

It was further submitted that as the applicant had expressed his regret and assured the Court not to repeat the same and was not discourteous or unruly, the Court ought not to have called the police personnel to de-court him, as he was not a security threat.

The Court noted that while the Court was taking up pre-arrest bail application, it was exercising its jurisdiction under the CrPC.

“In this regard, the Court is of the considered opinion that by making a prayer to recall/ strike-off/ delete/expunge the order dated 27.01.2023, passed by this Court in A.B. No. 235/2023, the applicant is seeking a review of the said order, which is not permissible in law as the Criminal Procedure Code does not confer review jurisdiction to this Court,” the Court said.

The Court further noted that the applicant is making an attempt through his application to justify wearing of jeans in Court on the ground that jeans is not excluded under the Gauhati High Court Rules though it was excluded under the Bar Council of India Rules.

“Thus, in light of the nature of plea taken, the indelible impression of the Court is that the expression of “regret” expressed by the applicant in para-4 of this application was not a genuine expression of regret,” the Court said.

It was remarked by the Court that as the applicant was not properly attired, his legal or fundamental right to get an audience from the Court cannot be said to have been infringed on being de-courted for wearing jeans. The Court observed that it is within the domain of every presiding judicial officer, including the Judge of the High Court to uphold adherence to the advocate's dress code within the Court campus.

“It is reiterated at the cost of repetition that the Court had decourted the applicant by passing a judicial order, which was implemented. The order of the Court, which has been implemented, cannot be undone by subsequent order of the same Court,” the Court said.

Thus, the Court dismissed the interlocutory application.

Case Title: Bijon Kumar Mahajan v. The State of Assam & Anr.

Case No.: I.A.(Crl.)/381/2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order